Several supporters of Constitution Party presidential nominee Darrell Castle responded critically to “Never Trump” activist Michael Harrington’s scathing critique of Castle; one such supporter, Caleb Waters, published his response the same day Harrington released his attack on Castle, on July 26th, 2016 (republished today at American Third Party Report):
By Caleb Waters
Recently, the popular “conservative” Michael Harrington promised to “destroy” the most conservative presidential candidate in the race, Darrell Castle. He delivered on his promise with an article that appeared (at least in the eyes of some that read it) to put to rest any notion that Castle was a conservative. So, I suppose I’m going to have to destroy Michael Harrington and his argument.
Let’s start with his second sentence, “I had seen enough piecemeal evidence to support avoiding Castle entirely, but the Castle supporters are now going full Trump in an effort to promote him as a real conservative.” Right off the bat, Harrington makes an attempt to discredit Castle without providing any evidence. This is meant to influence your starting opinion of Castle without considering the evidence first. Comparing Castle supporters to Trump (even when there is no true comparison) is simply a tactic he uses to appeal to the emotion of Cruz supporters who are weary of anything remotely having to do with Trump. He also implies that Castle is not a real conservative. It’s a great strategy for influencing our opinions, but it is not factual.
Now Harrington gets into Castle’s use of podcasts, “This is how he hides a lot of the content that would otherwise get a candidate caught quick.” Right! Castle, one of the most unknown candidates in the race, is using podcasts as a way to hide information from the voters! Remarkable.
Harrington’s next subheading reads “Attacks on Ted and Heidy Cruz.” Never mind the fact that Cruz would be a possible future opponent for Castle and the Constitution Party, or that Castle himself said on a conference call earlier this week that he would have voted for Cruz if he was a Republican. Instead, Harrington finds articles by individuals in two state Constitution Party affiliates, CP Arkansas and CP Washington. He doesn’t include the fact that the Constitution Party is very decentralized; that is, the state parties hold a range of stances different from each other and the national party. They all hold the same set of basic principles, but stances on individual issues very greatly.
So after all the distraction from Harrington about Castle’s party, he finally gets into Darrell Castle’s position on the matter, “He starts noting Ted Cruz launched his campaign then goes straight, I mean STRAIGHT, to where Ted Cruz was born.” Harrington acts as if this MUST be evidence that Castle is a “birther” (which Castle has denied repeatedly). This may make sense to you if you (like Harrington) ignore the context in which this podcast was made. It was made at the start of Cruz’s campaign, when the number one issue was whether he was eligible to be president. Ignoring this huge element of Castle’s campaign would not only be bad journalism, but would probably be a sign to anti-Cruz people that Castle was biased in favor of Cruz.
Harrington starts quoting Castle directly out of his podcast, comparing Cruz to Barack Obama. This is another appeal to the emotions of Cruz supporters, who are (rightfully so) disgusted by anybody correlated to Barack Obama. Castle never says anything about Cruz being similar to Obama in any way other than the speculation of their eligibility to be president. Castle is simply saying that Cruz’s situation is similar to that of Obama’s. He does not say what he thinks about Obama’s situation nor what he thinks about Cruz’s situation. Harrington conveniently leaves that fact out, which of course he has to in order to preserve his argument.
Harrington’s next line seems (to him at least) to put the nail in Castle’s coffin, “But then he attacks at the very end and says Ted Cruz ‘has all of the establishment credentials but he doesn’t sound establishment.’” Harrington views this as an “attack,” though there is no evidence that Castle intends it in that way. Castle may mean a few different things here; he could be saying that Cruz has the upper hand against many Republicans because of his ties to the establishment while holding anti-establishment views. He could be saying that Cruz is very experienced in Washington yet has been able to do so while holding views contrary to the establishment. Since there is no evidence either way, I’m not sure how Harrington can preserve his journalistic integrity while using this as an attack against Castle. Well, maybe I do know: Harrington has no journalistic integrity.
Harrington then says (in bold, even,) “Darrell Castle started the birther argument. His followers immediately started the CFR and NWO attacks on Heidi Cruz. Of that there is no doubt.” Okay, it’s easy to say there is no doubt, but does he have any evidence to back it up? No. This is by far the strangest part in Harrington’s article. He makes an entirely baseless claim, and states it as if it is indisputable fact. He goes on to say that this “birther” argument leaked into Rand Paul camps and libertarian circles from Castle’s circles. Even after Harrington admits that the attacks came before Cruz’s campaign even started or Castle ever made any mention of them, saying, “While some attacks predated Ted Cruz launching his candidacy Darrell Castle stands out as the first to launch a birther style attack on Senator Cruz after he announced his candidacy,” he insists that Castle started the attacks! What kind of backwards logic is this? I’ve never seen anything like it, and it is further proof that Harrington is no more qualified a journalist than I (which is saying a lot).
Harrington moves on to Castle’s economic plan. Note that he makes no mention of Castle’s intent to completely eliminate all federal income and sales taxes, or his plan to make up for any lost revenue with an ingenious state rate system (described in Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution) in which taxes are paid by states directly to the federal government in proportion to their population. He does not mention Castle’s stance against tax increases, and he does not say anything about Castle’s intention to eliminate unconstitutional federal regulatory agencies (which includes every agency that does anything outside of the 17 enumerated powers in the Constitution; a cut that not even Cruz suggested). Instead, he focuses on the replacement (replacement, mind you) of all income and sales taxes with an import tariff. This tariff is described by the very article that Harrington cites as a “low” tariff. Low. Harrington makes it seem as if this would positively kill our economy, that somehow this tariff would destroy our economy much more than huge income and sales taxes. He leaves out the part about our Founding Fathers. What tax system was envisioned by our Founders? An income tax? A sales tax? Indeed not. A tariff. That is how our Founders thought the federal government would generate its revenue. A tariff. How would this low tariff be enough to fund our federal government, one might ask? Well, as I previously stated, Castle advocates for such cuts in the size of the federal government that a low tariff would cover the costs, just as it did for our Founders. Harrington goes on to compare Castle to Trump, saying, “Tariff’s is why I rank Trump an F in economics, and the Constitution Party goes completely for Tariff’s.” Indeed, Trump proposes “tariff’s” (note the making of the word “tariff” plural by using an apostrophe TWICE, which is something we learn not to do in about the third grade), but he proposes them in addition to income taxes while making no proposed cuts to the federal government! Castle’s position on these issues is so drastically different than Trump’s that it is laughable to compare the two. Yet, Harrington is obviously a laughable “journalist,” so no surprise there. Harrington receives an “F” on economics, just as he assigned to Castle.
Harrington moves on to Constitution Party infighting, “There was extensive infighting in the Constitutional Party where a major State, Idaho, did not have Darrell Castle on the ballot.” Note that Harrington refers to Castle’s party as the “Constitutional Party,” which is another sign that Harrington is nothing close to being a credible journalist. The name of the party is the Constitution Party. No “al” at the end. While some may overlook this, any credible journalist would not.
“They also ignore certain amendments that have happened, in an act of cherry picking. Adding restrictions that do not exist is just icing on their cake.” Harrington, in another amazing show of his journalistic capabilities, degrades the party, and then does not defend his argument; rather, he simply links to another source.
Harrington goes on an attack against Castle’s desire to let Israel handle its own foreign affairs, saying, “He started a comment about foreign aid with Israel as an example. One simply does not start with Israel as an example unless they intend to stand deliberately against Israel.” What an assumption! Once again, Harrington undermines his journalistic credibility by somehow trying to guess Castle’s mind. Castle has repeatedly said that he views foreign aid as unconstitutional. Oh, the horror! He is against giving taxpayer money to a country as it is unconstitutional. He has expressed his support for Israel multiple times, saying that we would defend Israel if it was attacked. Harrington ignores this, and goes to link Castle to racists and anti-Semites, saying, “However in the racist circles, and in the circles that blame Jews for the idea of the NWO (A topic Castle puts a lot of time in on) there is a definite belief that Israel is a bad nation.” While Castle certainly puts a lot of time in on the NWO, there no evidence whatsoever, that Castle is racist, though Harrington implies this. Indeed, Castle’s wife is of JEWISH HERITAGE. I cannot emphasize enough the stupidity and invalidity of these attacks.
In his closing, Harrington reiterates his criticisms against Castle, so I suppose I should do the same about my criticisms against Harrington. We have a man that lacks journalistic integrity, economic knowledge, and historical knowledge criticizing the most conservative candidate in the 2016 presidential race. I advocate that any (former) Harrington supporters that read this article let him know just how wrong he is, and spread the truth about Mr. Castle and the Constitution Party. Harrington’s original article:https://www.facebook.com/notes/michael-harrington/vetting-darrell-castle-of-the-constitution-party/1642661692417745/
A day or so later, Castle supporter Clint Bishop also wrote a rebuttal to Harrington’s critique of Castle:
By Clint Bishop
Vetting Michael Harrington of the Corrupt “Let’s Remain Republican at All Costs” Party This article is written as a rebuttal to Michael Harrington’s July 26th, 2016 Facebook post entitled Vetting Darrell Castle of the Constitution Party. In this article we’ll evaluate Mr. Harrington’s claims, review his history of relaying facts to those who have relied upon him for hope and inspiration, critique his political acumen, and more.
First a little background on myself, my path to whom I currently support and my party affiliation, and our recent and current political climate that led up to this:
As was the case for many, I never appreciated Civics or Government Courses. In fact, I held disdain for all things pertaining to politics until the Financial Crisis of ’07-08. I quickly self-identified as a Republican. Over the following months I would come to embrace the title “Conservative”. After the John McCain loss my newfound absorption would leave me furious with establishment, moderate Republicans, praying for a grassroots uprising among fellow conservatives. When the Tea Party movement emanated from our anger and concern, we felt as though the Republican Party would comprehend what happened and espouse our ideology once again. Nevertheless, we ended up with Romney in 2012 while watching the establishment back less conservative moderates. The same happened in 2014. In 2014, many of us had our eyes on the firecracker of a Senator from Texas, Ted Cruz for the 2016 Presidential race. Mr. Cruz brought about a movement in the conservative ranks of shifting towards the Constitution. Many, like myself, adopted the moniker Constitutional conservative. I proclaimed my future departure from the GOP if the greatest Conservative of my time did not prevail as the Republican Party Nominee in the 2016 Primaries. When it became apparent that almost half of our Party had become swept up in an emotional populist movement and the clown of the century would be nominated, Cruz suspended his campaign and it became apparent that the GOP had left me. No more chances, no more reform, no more waiting on the establishment to be removed. To add insult to injury, elected officials of red states across the nation have been discovered to have become embroiled in the same type of scandals and corruption that we have only known was prevalent among the national ranks. Goodbye GOP, it’s over.
If I had the foresight to know the nomination hopes for Ted Cruz was over, why didn’t fellow Cruzers? Let’s take a look at what’s transpired since… March, shall we? On March 1st, Super Tuesday or the SEC Primaries, the outlook for Cruz became quite grim for any of us that were remotely reasonable. The hardcore Cruzaders, such as myself, steadfastly supported him, not wanting to let go until the math became more damning. As the primaries of April approached it became apparent to any sensible person that Cruz would need nothing shy of a few miracles in order to win. In mid-April I began researching candidates in other parties and the minor parties across the nation. To my pleasant surprise there was a Party that aligned with my (supposed) Constitutional conservative views on approximately 80% of the issues, according to the isidewith.com quiz. The name was brilliant! The Constitution Party, what a match! Over the following weeks, I researched several candidates, such as Austin Petersen, Gary Johnson, as well as the Constitution Party candidate, Mr. Darrell Castle. After Mr. Cruz suspended on May 3rd I immediately took to spreading this message to fellow Cruzers to little avail. I couldn’t understand why so many were criticizing me for having given up on Cruz. I was bumfuzzled, I always viewed us as the supporters who were able to rationalize and use sound reasoning in order to make educated decisions, not act out of emotion as the Trumpbots were doing. Little did I know, there were voices in the Conservative movement claiming victory for Ted, and providing false hope for trusting, impassioned Cruzaders nationwide.
A quick search of “Michael Harrington Ted Cruz” will bring up no less than three RedState articles authored by Michael himself. These are titled How Ted Cruz has won the Nomination from 04/10/2016, New York never mattered, Ted Cruz won the Presidency from 04/20/2016, and Ted Cruz has won the nomination *Detailed Analysis* from 04/22/2016. In an April 21st interview (here) with Mr. Red Herring-ton, respected talk show host and writer Steve Deace stated in his lead-in that Michael was either “Mad Smart or Just Mad”. During the interview, at minute 19:42, Mr. Deace pointed out Mr. Harrington claimed Donald Trump had less than a 1% chance of winning the nomination, Michael confirmed. It doesn’t take a doctorate in Psychology to determine which of Mr. Deace’s suggestions apply to Michael Harrington. That brings us to the “Free the Delegates” movement. While many of us, including myself, had high hopes and prayers for the movement, and Michael wasn’t the brainchild for this one, he was an avid supporter and perpetuator of its plausibility.
Recently Mr. Michael Harrington of Fox News… No, that’s not it. Allow me to start over please. Recently Mr. Michael Harrington, Department Head of… Cue the rewind bite, that isn’t it either. One more try. Recently Mr. Michael Harrington, Commercial Truck Driver and misleader of Conservatives (that’s it!) announced he would “have to do an indepth report, with links, and more, to destroy Darrel Castle” (left the misspellings as they were in quote). While this may seem insensitive and crass, I’d like to
point out that my step-father has driven commercial tractor and trailers his entire life. The difference is that my step-father and other honest, hard-working Christian patriots aren’t misguiding thousands of voters in our nation pretending to be some type of Marvel Hero for the conservative movement, making outlandish predictions that were being shared across Conservative Media Outlets across the nation during an important time for our movement when the common sense, right wingers should have been exploring other options and preparing for an acceptable alternative.
(Click on above image to enlarge)
As one browses through Michael’s Facebook page, you begin to understand a few things about him. It isn’t immediately apparent with only reading a post or two at a time, but as you put together multiple snarkish posts and comments on his wall and in response to others, a certain habit of self-aggrandizement reveals itself. I probably would’ve missed it had a couple of Facebook friends of my own hadn’t responded to a couple of his posts with harsh criticism of his palpable narcissism. It’s quite reminiscent of one, Donald J. Trump, come to think of it. The difference, like it or not, is that the Sideshow Trump actually wins when he claims he does.
(Click on image to enlarge)
“have to do an indepth report, with links, and more, to destroy Darrel Castle” -Michael Harrington
“yeah but he was on the phone (Reclaim DC/#GOPEXODUS conference) call with David Serenda and now I need to tear the man (Darrell Castle) up to prevent a Cruz fest to a man who was involved in birther attacks on Cruz.”-Michael Harrington
The previous captions are merely threats from a supposedly objective Michael Harrington. Not all of Michael’s “audience”, as he calls them above, isn’t quite as impressed with his determination to destroy a good man’s reputation as Michael seems to be. The subsequent screenshots will further illustrate Mr. Harrington’s self-admiration, as well as some of the more sensible responses to his expressed desires.
“But apparently you are going to throw in with Trump to save the party that tried to destroy Cruz. Don’t get that at all.” -Sherri Norton Perry
(Click on above image to enlarge)
I think by now, especially if you have taken a moment to examine his page, you have become cognizant of Mr. Harrington’s egocentric behavior. To recap, we have a Commercial Truck Driver with an educational history of Crime Prevention and Public Safety, who is proficient in Windows, Politics, Data Storage Technology, Conservatism, Republicanism, Infantry, Binary Code, Math, Computer Science, Computer Security, Security, and is a Strategist, Statistician, Math related Scientist, Inventor, Mad Scientist; and lest we forget the greatest feat of all, online gamer who refers to himself as “Einstein”. Did I mention that this man is the source (link here) of the ridiculous assertion that 12 million Democrats voted in the Republican Primaries (for Trump) and that Trump only garnered 3.3 million votes? That’s correct folks, he claims that out “of (the) 31 million that voted in the Republican Primary, 38% approximately were Democrats.” Now while I’m sure that this is a recurring issue in open primaries, it defies all logic to think that this high of a percentage could be attributed to the Democrat Party crossover votes. After all, wouldn’t that mean that Democrats would surely take the election despite the GOP winner when they switched back for the general election based on sheer numbers alone? This is the man who misled thousands, possible hundreds of thousands, of Cruz supporters through his crackpot articles that were shared as gospel around the conservative circles taking advantage of those who were desparate for a miracle, possibly single-handedly ruining our chances at a viable alternative to Trump.
2 Timothy 3:13 But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.
May God have mercy on our nation.
Now for the claims against Mr. Castle of the Constitution Party. Just as is the case with his statistical declarations, we will be able to conclude after this article that his case against Darrell Castle is absurd as well. Let’s begin by pointing out that Mr. Harrington commences his diaribe stating that Mr. “Castle has become a talking point upon conservatives and especially Cruz supporters.” He states that Castle supporters are now going full Trump in an effort to promote him as a real conservative. First, it’s no accident that Mr. Castle has become a talking point among Cruz supporters. Many Cruz supporters, such as myself, have joined the Constitution Party and and are in full support of it and Mr. Castle. In fact, many key figures in the party were recently Cruz supporters. As a chart I recently dispersed around our circles have shown, Castle and Cruz have a ton in common. This would be expected since they each have a profound respect for the Constitution. As a matter of fact, Cruz has recently shifted certain positions, such as leaving the UN, towards Castle’s already held position. As for “going full Trump in an effort to promote him as a real conservative”, nothing could be further from the truth. Castle supporters ARE the new Cruz supporters. Castle supporters are attacked by conservatives who believe they are Constitutional conservatives, from libertarians, and from the left. Many Cruz supporters are proving to be no exception. Many Cruzers, taking cues from perceived leaders such as Mr. Harrington, are now acting no different than Trump supporters who bashed Cruzaders for over a year. The difference is that Trumpets had no way to empathize with Cruzers, with Cruzers I would expect empathy seeing as we suffered the same abuse from Trumpers. For those of us that have supported both Cruz and Castle, we continue to tolerate the onslaught.
The next ridiculous accusation is that “Darrell Castle uses Podcasts for the majority of his content, he literally forces you to listen to him to get what he is saying. This is how he hides a lot of the content that would otherwise get a candidate caught quick.” You must be kidding me… One of the most impressive aspects of the Constitution Party is it’s educational materials. Each week, the Vice Presidential Candidate, Constitutional Law PhD, Dr. Scott Bradley, provides a one hour webinar regarding the Constitution. Likewise, the Presidential Candidate, Mr. Darrell Castle, holds a 10-30 minute podcast regarding a constitutional issue or a current event. Contrary to most parties and government officials, the Constitution Party actually WANTS you to understand what is going on.
Attacks on Ted and Heidi Cruz
The crux of Michael Harrington’s argument against Castle is the rumored attacks by Darrell Castle against Ted Cruz. Oddly enough, Michael begins this section with a screenshot of the ‘Constitution Party of Arkansas’ Facebook page, showing an article that was copy and pasted in a post by the state party regarding titled“Ted Cruz: Pros and Cons”. His screenshot was sure to include the “Cons” section, which outlined the author’s birther stance. What he fails to inform his readers, whether wittingly or due to ignorance, is that the bottom of the article shows that it was copy and pasted, giving a copyright credit to Pastor Chuck Baldwin who hasn’t been associated with the Constitution party since 2011. A simple google search will inform any reader of this. He is correct in stating that the Washington State Constitution Party Facebook group made a similar post two days later. You see, the Constitution Party is set up much like our government was intended to be, this is actually by design. We have semiautonomous state parties, some even with a different party name due to previous party mergers or the old party name. There isn’t massive vetting of articles or opinions by the state parties through the national party. This would be analogous to the Governor of Washington requesting the POTUS permission to give his opinion on matters. The state parties adhere to primary party platform issues and send delegates to the National Conventions, that’s about it. You are just as likely to find a Cruz enthusiast running a state party as you are a Cruz dissenter. In other words, who cares?! His point was to discredit Castle and he still didn’t do so.
Finally Michael will address Castle’s podcast. This is the focal point of most accusations against Castle in regards to the birther theories. In his podcast(listen) there is never a point in which Castle claims Ted Cruz is not eligible. As a matter of fact, he runs down facts regarding Mr. Cruz, his birth, and even has the nerve (note the feign outrage) to imply a direct, correct correlation with Barack Obama. Ironically his account of Ted Cruz was much more factual than Mr. Harrington’s account of Mr. Castle. What I’m most upset about is that Mr. Castle didn’t outright endorse Ted Cruz at that moment (feign outrage again). How could a Constitutionist from an opposing party that would be running for his own party’s nomination, a different party, dare not endorse Ted Cruz, of the oppressive and corrupt GOP? This is truly how ridiculous all of this sounds. Allow me to put this in a way that is more easily relatable for fellow Cruzers. If Marco Rubio or Rand Paul would’ve accrued the plurality of votes in the Replublican Party and won the nomination, 99% of us Cruz supporters would likelty have supported either of them for President. Now, think back for a moment. Marco Rubio and Rand Paul, both, attacked Ted on the debate stage. In fact, Paul seemed to have blind sided Ted in an attempt to gain ground, while Rubio lied and twisted Ted’s words. It’s quite hypocritic to expect more of Mr. Castle than those two.
Michael then accuses Castle of doublespeak and blames him and the Party for the birther and Heidi Cruz/NWO ties. He immediately recants, likely due to the fact that he blatantly lied so there were no citations to back his claim. After all, even Fox News and other conservative media outlets were questioning Cruz’s eligibility long before Ted Cruz stepped into the race. Their criticisms are why Ted renounced his dual citizenship in order to qualify for the Presidency. Considering this was supposedly his primary contention of Cruzers supporting Castle, it’s quite clear his argument is weak at best.
This is the where the most interesting points of Mr. Harrington’s arguments begin in my opinion. Why? Well… Mr. Jack of a Thousand Trades puts on new hats for the next few sections. In this one he tackles economics against Castle and the founding fathers. You heard correctly, the founding fathers themselves. It seems at this point in the article that Michael believes his audience will cease checking his links. The link he provides to prove his accusations of Mr. Castle’s economic plans only slightly touches on economics. The most ludicrous part, it was an interview from 2009. Mr. Castle has done probably dozens of interviews since this one, many of which economics were discussed. Those supposedly elusive podcasts have addressed economics. The truth is that Mr. Castle quite versed in economic issues. In the interview on the above hyperlink, Mr. Castle states only that we should “withdraw from so called free trade agreements such as NAFTA…”. The reason is widely known among Constitutionists. Mr. Harrington wouldn’t know this, however. These Trade Agreements are not free trade. They are managed trade and they are poorly negotiated in manners which surrender our sovereignty to international courts and organizations. His second mention in the article of economic policies is a criticism of Barack Obama’s Keynesian approach to our economic problems. Humorously, Castle began grading Obama at this point with “F’s”, at the same time Mr. Harrington began grading Castle in his editorial. Castle’s last mention of economic policies in the article pertained to income tax and trade. He states that with his policies, “The income tax would be abolished and the government would be funded by a low, non-punitive import tariff.” In a more recent interview on C Span on 04/24/2016, at minute 12:00, Darrell Castle explains other minute details of his tax plan. He states “I’m an advocate of the Constitutional tax that’s set out by Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 4 which essentially puts the taxing authority in the hands of the states, through apportionment in the states, as the census is apportioned… As far as taxes on imports and things like that, yes that is one of the planks of the Constitution Party platform. I personally have no problems with free trade… If the United States wants to work out a deal with Mexico for example, where it says you don’t charge us for trade, we won’t charge you for trade, I see nothing wrong with that. I’m not a person who wants to go in front of the American people and say ‘Look, if you elect me President everything you buy is going to cost a lot more’. So we have to be careful about too much tax on imports, it could provoke trade wars with other countries, damage the economy…”
Michael Harrington then goes on to give his amateur analysis of tax and trade, at which point he is basically refuting the way our nation was ran over the course of 150 years until the ratification of the 16th Amendment; at that point the other Consitutional taxations were still applicable. The difference for the past century has been that we have been taxed by the 16th Amendment as well as through the other Constitutional means of raising revenues. Income taxes are in direct opposition to the concept of Right to Property. As is presently the case, the more means of taxation the government can employ, the more it will. His next link is in regards to the Party’s trade policy. This is the only place in his entire review where he actually has a point. The idea of targeted protectionism, or tariffs intended to build specific local industries, are debatable. However, outright claiming that across the board tariffs is a viable policy is asinine. In three months with the Party I have not encountered one single member at any rank that believes this is the best policy. My only guess is that it was meant to be put in as a Constitutional option for rebuilding dying domestic industries or as a temporary option as we shift out of our current trade agreements and towards more Constitutional treaties and agreements that do not usurp American sovereignty. This is merely speculation, however.
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution
In his last section regarding economics, Michael Harrington criticizes the Party’s vote for a resolution against the proposed Federal ‘Fair Tax’, but he didn’t explain our stance. The ‘Fair Tax’ link contains the Resolution. The concerns are the constitutionality of a Federal Fair Tax. That isn’t to say that states couldn’t enact a Fair Tax or raise revenues any other way they see fit. After all, under a MUCH smaller government, less foreign intervention, the abolition of unconstitutional federal agencies, a monetary system that doesn’t print digital money, and running annual surpluses, trade would hardly be an issue. Certainly Mr. Harrington’s Democrat-style demagoguery of long waits on vehicles and boats would not ring true. I will save my grades for Mr. Harrington until the end.
Constitution Party Infighting
This is hardly worth addressing. For the sake of completeness I will briefly touch upon it, as he did. There are two major parties. Those parties hold a duopoly in politics. Since Ross Perot’s first run in 1992, the same year the Constitution Party was founded, the Democrat and Republican Parties have stifled minor parties from reaching prominence in politics. They are not only corrupt, but fear losing power and seek to maintain it at all costs. The Libertarian Party, which was founded in the 1970’s, has just now reached remote viability at the national level. The Green Party and Constitution Party both have limited access but are making bold efforts this election cycle to break out into the open as sensible alternatives to the Democrat and Republican Parties. The Constitution Party believes in having our Party set up as our nation was intended to be, as I stated in the ‘Ted Cruz’ section. We are semi-autonomous state parties, we act relatively independent in comparison to most national parties and their affiliates. Mr. Darrell Castle, at one point, had decided not to run for the nomination, but retracted. By that point one of our more active state parties, Idaho, had nominated their state’s choice for the Presidential nomination. This is much less about “infighting” and more about one state’s miscommunication with the federal party, regardless of which is at fault. As I also stated earlier, state parties can stay, leave, split, disassociate, merge with other parties, etc. While the numbers of membership are not overwhelming, I would not expect them to be. After all, large electoral college states and red states are among the toughest states for obtaining ballot access. They are the most paranoid about losing power to minor parties. I will point out that for a man who is doing everything within his power to stop any and all 3rd Parties from growing, seemingly in favor of maintaining the status quo with the GOP, it sure is hypocritical to bring up “infighting” in association with any party. Hello Pot, meet Kettle! I happen to recall rabid infighting at the RNC Convention, between Cruzers and Trumpers if I’m not mistaken? The link shows what infighting really looks like. Thank you Mr. Cuccinelli for escorting Mrs. Heidi Cruz out of the Convention.
Constitution Party acting… ‘Unconstitutional’
These seem to get more ridiculous as I go. In the section in which I gave my background, I stated that I had taken the moniker ‘Constitutional conservative’ when I became a Cruzer. After a couple of weeks with the Constitution Party I realized that it was a misnomer. At least once per day I get a neoconservative who thinks he/she’s a Constitutional conservative and feel as though they’ve spotted something unconstitutional in the Constitution Party’s platform, and make some preposterous claim that they’ve “called out the Constitution Party on consitutitionality”. Every time the result is the same, they were never quite as knowledgeable of the original intent of the Constitution as they thought they were. This also plays back into the education that the Constitution Party imparts upon its willing members. One of the main things I’ve learned since joining here is the importance of humility. You never know how much you think you know, especially about the Constitution. Mr. Harrington has wisely been deleting and stifling those who post on his threads because the inevitable Constitutional debate will end up happening with a Constitutionist and he will get schooled and exposed as nothing more than a conservative. Mr. Harrington tried to point to the “Pornography, Obscenity, and Sexually-oriented Businesses” section of the Party platform as an area where the Constitution Party reads “into it (the Constitution) a restriction that does not exist.” Aside from his lack of Constitutional prowess, Mr. Harrington shows a lack of reading comprehension skills here. The section doesn’t claim that porn, obscenity, and sexually-oriented businesses are unconstitutional, it states that the party calls on “all levels of government to protect and promote that which is truly free speech while vigorously defending and enforcing (existing) laws that protect us from the proliferation of the pornography and sexually oriented business industries…” Another claim he makes is that the Constitution Party “ignores certain amendments that have happended, in an act of cherry picking. Adding restrictions that do not exist is just icing on their cake.” Again, Michael is writing checks here that he can’t intellectually cash. Recently a joinee of the Party that had only been with us for a few weeks made a fascinating statement regarding the Party’s members. He stated that it was awe-inspiring that the average “Member” of our Party possesses more Constitutional knowledge than your average local or county elected official. What may be confusing to Mr. Harrington is that nasty “original intent” interpretation that liberals and neo-cons don’t really get. You see, originalists don’t give much weight to liberal SCOTUS decisions or other loose interpretations of the Constitution. If those are his preferred methods of Constitutional interpretation, granted he understands that term, and he sticks to that, he would have no place in our Party anyway. Lots of factors are taken into consideration when interpreting the Constitution, not simply the text or case law.
“On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” -Thomas Jefferson June 12th, 1823
In his last section of his pathetic attempt at a hit piece against Darrell Castle, Michael Harrington perhaps goes the furthest off the deepend, at least in regards to the topic of Darrell Castle. At this point he certainly is banking on his readers simply taking his word like sheep, and he is also proving to be a hypocrite. In an effort to rile up the Judeo-Christians, what most of us are in the Constitution and Republican Parties, he attemps to make his own rules regarding what constitutes anti-Israel. His bloviating begins in the “Israel” section with a loose attempt to empathyze with Israel due to having “Einstein” as his online gaming nickname for eight years, stating that he was attacked for simply having the nickname. If this isn’t faux correlation between himself and real oppression then I don’t know what is. Honestly, it’s quite offensive. He then cites the Constitution Party platform piece, written by Darrell Castle himself on August 18th, 2014, as a submission of proof that Castle is anti-Israel. The page is here. On this page, Castle outlines the reasoning behind the Party’s position of ending foreign aid to all nations (not only Israel), but includes something special that is not included in ANY of the Constitution Party platform. He states “Keep in mind that the Constitution Party platform has an avenue for change if you don’t like it. You can join your state party and become a delegate in the 2016 National Convention and represent your state as a member of the platform committee, where you can lobby the committee and the convention to insert the words ‘except for Israel’ in each of these sections.” One thing is crystal clear for this to have happened, there is a significant portion of the Party that believe in providing aid to Israel, despite the constitutionality issues of foreign aid, and that the Party is open to the change. For Mr. Harrington on the other hand, in the Constitution section of his document, he clearly stated that “we either abide by all of the Constitution or none of it.” Next, he uses a Wikipedia page ‘with issues’ as his source for Israel’s revenue. We are almost 20 Trillion dollars in debt and this man is citing Wikipedia and listing Israel’s expenses and revenues as arguments for continuing to fund them. One of the saddest examples of Michael’s morals comes next. He stoops to the level of implying that Darrell Castle is racist
Proverbs 10:18 He who conceals hatred has lying lips, And he who spreads slander is a fool.
and that he believes that Israel is a bad nation. The Holy Bible warns us of slanderers.
I’ve seen Michael’s claim that he merely “provided the facts”, but I see a lot of fiction, embellishment, and even outright lies, as I’ve proven in this rebuttal. Michael Harrington knowingly and willingly took aim at Darrell Castle, he admittedly has conspired to sabotage Mr. Castle. Mr. Harrington has stooped so low as to cross out Mr. Castle’s military experience in the main image for his piece. Darrell Castle is a U.S. Marine Corps Vietnam War Veteran who trained under then 1st Lieutenant, Oliver North, eventually reaching 1st Lieutenant himself. Michael thinks of his “audience” as cultists, exactly as Donald Trump does. He feels he can think for his sheep and lead them according to his own will. Worst of all, when so many are ready to turn a page in their political book and build a more prominent and principled party, they have Michael Harrington ALWAYS luring them back to the GOP. There’s a reason he wants you all there folks. The image below is a recent post from Michael’s page. Think for yourselves and God Bless!